Education is a business? Is there a product warranty?

Thanks, Barry

Christine O'Donnell wrote: "Sex is a covenant between a man and a woman and God."

kinkier than we first thought

Monkeyboy wrote:Anyway, you'll also need to find a way to attract more people to teaching, if you are going to dump all this dead weight. Despite it being the easiest job a human can have and all the extra time teachers have (yes, I'm being sarcastic), there's already a teacher shortage. Dump all these teachers and it will get worse. That will lead to bigger class sizes and lower test scores, so good luck with that. I personally think teachers should be paid a good bit more in exchange for longer school years or something like that, but I'm not in charge of such things.

I haven't seen signs that others think this way, but I think kids need much less "schooliness". Turn the teacher shortage into a teacher glut by requiring less schooling.

Cap what schools are doing to 'age out' of existing workforces. Require children to demonstrate they can use the tools of learning. Torque up the tax code to make it really attractive for employers of all kinds to support a variety of learning (which might include, for instance, learning to be healthy).

I don't mean to impugn the skills, capabilities, aspirations, or pay levels of anyone here - but it's the institutional architecture of education that causes our society problems, not the teachers themselves, whatever their talents for educating.

I don't think I agree with Smooth (as I see a difference between education and vocational training). But along maybe parallel lines I think one problem affecting education is mission creep. We expect our schools to so much--fight obesity, provide entertainment to the community through athletics, deal with some profound psycho-social issues, among others--that the main purpose which we're all emphasizing here, academics, gets lost in the shuffle.

drsmooth wrote:
I don't mean to impugn the skills, capabilities, aspirations, or pay levels of anyone here - but it's the institutional architecture of education that causes our society problems, not the teachers themselves, whatever their talents for educating.

Well, I definitely agree with that. The other problems are symptoms of what you say. I would add that there's an ingrained culture of failure and a fad cult that may not come out in the laundry.

TenuredVulture wrote:....along maybe parallel lines I think one problem affecting education is mission creep. We expect our schools to so much--fight obesity, provide entertainment to the community through athletics, deal with some profound psycho-social issues, among others--that the main purpose which we're all emphasizing here, academics, gets lost in the shuffle.

ta-dah


when I'm talking about tools of learning, I'm talking about the techniques and processes of accessing and evaluating information.

Learning how to read goes well beyond learning an alphabet, a vocabulary, and checking required books of a reading list. Once people know how, then they need guidance, rather than tutoring. They can find, comprehend and apply and test themselves, along with others in the same pursuits, on more sophisticated principles. And their evaluation for proficiency - there's obviously still a need for that sort of verification - can be as open a process. These things are done how they are done currently out of habit rather than on evidence of effectiveness.

There's a teacher shortage? Really?

Werthless wrote:There's a teacher shortage? Really?

Not across the board, but there are fairly acute shortages in math, science, special education and I think probably a couple other fields.

One of the proposed reforms Randi Weingarten's UFT resisted in New York City was the idea of offering differential pay for qualified teachers in those shortage fields. Can't let the market respond, heaven forfend. Would be unfair to those glut-subject teachers, so better to cram the kids in (never mind that this is unfair to those teachers suddenly dealing with 32 kids in the math class or science lab rather than 22) or keep class sizes low by hiring a guy who thinks weight and mass are the same thing.

A somewhat related problem is that something like 60 percent of the teacher workforce is within a decade of retirement. So potentially we could see across-the-board shortages unless we find a way to drop the attrition rate (half of new teachers wash out in the first three years, in part because seniority means they get the roughest gigs and aren't adequately supported once in them) or attract large numbers of talented, motivated newcomers into the field. Now how might we do that?

</remembering everything he hated about Weingarten's tenure in NYC and the worst aspects of teachers unions in general>

Bloomberg writes checks, makes visits

Kind of fascinating, in that Bloomberg is in some respects a perfect Tea Party villain (the parts of it that resemble nativist Populism and resent nanny-statism) and in others a kind of hero to them: not just non-partisan but contemptuous of partisanship, "gets things done". (Never mind that the reason he "gets things done" in NYC is because our mayoralty is incredibly strong and City Council largely irrelevant.)

Anyway, I sort of like the idea that as the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors family are to the right and George Soros and Peter Lewis are to the left, Bloomberg could be to the center. Maybe even enough to create a self-aware and functional center.

(Note: I very possibly like this idea because I suspect Bloomberg's "center" is the Clinton/Obama Democrats without any remaining vestige of identity politics or interest-group capture--empiricist technocrats whose core goals are balanced budgets and equality of opportunity, who believe in the power of the public sector without idealizing it or overlooking the many ways in which it can and will go wrong.)

eva angelina already signed up to play o'donnell in the corresponding pr0n film after she wins/loses

I'm wary of Krugman when he gets into policy prescriptions, because he so often scants fundamental facts in an attempt to rig up his proposals. It's why he usually sucks on health care, in my opinion.

I feel he's much better when limning broad sociocultural phenomena, like class war

If anyone here cares to pour linseed oil on the picture he paints in The Angry Rich, his op-ed piece today, or even simply to touch it up here or there, I'd enjoy hearing/reading it.

drsmooth wrote:I'm wary of Krugman when he gets into policy prescriptions, because he so often scants fundamental facts in an attempt to rig up his proposals. It's why he usually sucks on health care, in my opinion.

I feel he's much better when limning broad sociocultural phenomena, like class war

If anyone here cares to pour linseed oil on the picture he paints in The Angry Rich, his op-ed piece today, or even simply to touch it up here or there, I'd enjoy hearing/reading it.

I started out hoping to laugh this off with detached smugness, but by the end he had invoked my righteous ire and had me storming the Bastille. All in an op-ed where he substantiates exactly nothing and makes lots of vague references to "they" (whoever the hell that is). The guy is good at what he does.

One bit certainly rang true: my mom makes over six figures a year, yet insists she's not "rich". I make 1/10 of Krugman's 400 and 500K crew, yet I consider myself "rich". Mom says she hasn't gotten new carpet for her bedroom floor in ten years. What the hell, lots of people don't even have bedroom floors. </rant>

Augustus wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I'm wary of Krugman when he gets into policy prescriptions, because he so often scants fundamental facts in an attempt to rig up his proposals. It's why he usually sucks on health care, in my opinion.

I feel he's much better when limning broad sociocultural phenomena, like class war

If anyone here cares to pour linseed oil on the picture he paints in The Angry Rich, his op-ed piece today, or even simply to touch it up here or there, I'd enjoy hearing/reading it.

I started out hoping to laugh this off with detached smugness, but by the end he had invoked my righteous ire and had me storming the Bastille. All in an op-ed where he substantiates exactly nothing and makes lots of vague references to "they" (whoever the hell that is). The guy is good at what he does.

One bit certainly rang true: my mom makes over six figures a year, yet insists she's not "rich". I make 1/10 of Krugman's 400 and 500K crew, yet I consider myself "rich". Mom says she hasn't gotten new carpet for her bedroom floor in ten years. What the hell, lots of people don't even have bedroom floors. </rant>

That was sorta kinda where I was going; the emptiness of overweening protests about material privation when even after the privation is inflicted one is still comfortably among the very wealthiest among one's countrymen, let alone all people on the planet. Schwarzman has not a leg to stand on (in fact, I think his legs should be stood on, by the entire O-line of any available professional football team simultaneously).

I believe more than a few Tea Partiers have legitimate concerns about the diminution of their voice in the public square. What concerns me is their easy enthusiasm for allowing the likes of Schwarzman, or Armey, or even Scott Brown, to co-opt their cause by suggesting they're kindred spirits experiencing like affliction.

Zogby Poll Questions for Monday: Did you ever dabble in witchcraft in high school. If yes, please clarify whether you joined a coven or did not join a coven.

Did you ever have a date that ended at a satanic altar?

For the first time since the Dems took back Congress, the NRSC has more cash on hand than the DSCC (I bet they wish they could have talked Schumer into a third term as chair).

Also Kos teased a poll in Wisconsin that he's releasing tomorrow that has Feingold down double digits.

In a related story, I hate Delaware.

I can't believe that anyone gives a shit what O'Donnell did or didn't do in high school. The problem with her is the precious little she has done since.

mozartpc27 wrote:I can't believe that anyone gives a $#@! what O'Donnell did or didn't do in high school. The problem with her is the precious little she has done since.

unfortunately its character what sells and not actual ability to do the job.

i'm still angry that my mom is going to vote for her. my friends dad said he's going to vote for her.

mozartpc27 wrote:I can't believe that anyone gives a $#@! what O'Donnell did or didn't do in high school. The problem with her is the precious little she has done since.

I certainly don't.

However, the fact that she would mention it on the Bill Maher show in 1999 strikes me as indicative of the fact that she is not that removed from a reality TV player who just loves to say outrageous things so she can be famous. The other point to be made is that if you take a principled attack on O'Donnell all that will do is energize her base as they will view it as the big bad liberal media mudslinging. However, an allegation of any type of anti-pious behavor might be something that her base actually cares about as crazy as that sounds. And I'm a Republican.

Would any of you here -- on whatever side of the line you stand -- would you support a new Constitutional Congress?

Would you support a massive national vote on some of the big issues like Abortion?

Would you support computerized voting, done with finger-print ID or retinal scan for 98% and some fall back for the 2% who couldn't use those for some reason -- where there is an election window of say 2 weeks. Machines are deployed at post offices or something and the voting process is exactly the same in every county and state for national voting. No election results or exit polls are allowed to be published during the ongoing vote. If 2 weeks is too long how bout a Sat and Sunday or Fri and Sat or Tues and Wed or make it a national holiday.